tv [untitled] September 2, 2010 2:00pm-2:30pm PST
>> i would like to welcome everyone back. we are now on item 13 for 640- 642 shotwell street. >> i would like to have the item continued. the package does not have enough staff analysis presented to us and basically the information we have as to why the project should be approved is left to the response to the dr request
er. i don't believe that the commission should be dependent upon the response for why the prejudice to be approved. this is not to say that i am for or against that at this particular time. at this particular time, that is what i am requesting. >> is that the motion? >> i will move to continue. >> until what date? >> the 16th is the next hearing. >> the 23rd is closed. >> this will have to go to
>> yes, we will. >> i would like to add that we did talk to pilar and i thought that she sent the existing plans to everyone. >> is there a second? >> there is a second. >> i need some more direction from the commissioner. i did not hear that these are existing plans, we did not receive them. what else are we to learn? >> i would like to know the status reasoning for approval under the environmental. the building appears to be
eligible, this is exempted under the first class. i like to know the reasoning behind that. we are not presented with any staff analysis. the residential design team says. >> i believe this fell under an abbreviated discretionary review. >> it sounds like you're asking that this would be the full dr. correct. >> i might add to this
especially since this is within an area that the staff considers to be not only eligible for the california registered but also along this area and for listing in the national registry of historic places. given that kind of status, we should be privy to a little bit more staff analysis. >> if i am interpreting the rules correctly, if they commissioner wishes to have the report be more than just a brief dr, that is enough to make it such. in only supplying what was applied based on the fact that it was clearly pointed out that this did not rise to a level that under future consideration
would be brought to the commission. i think that everyone has been done the way it should be done but i understand the concern that more information is necessary based upon what commissioners a guy has brought -- commissioner sugaya has brought up. >> we are concerned about a full-blown analysis. >> what is the continuation date? >> october 7th. >> on the motion for a continuance -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> so move, commissioners.
this will place us at public comment. at this time, members of the public may address items that are within the business of the board. >> is there any public comment? >> general comment disclosed. >> -- is closed. >> can ask about the material? >> the staff will follow up. >> i do not want to leave him hanging. >> i will not. >> the meeting is adjourned.